RE: [oic] Version Control Commit by bart.hanssens

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I notice that there is a strong resistance to additional indirection.  I'd
prefer that we work backwards from the problems we are trying to solve
before we try optimizing.

I think that is unavoidable for interpretations.  Somewhere, there needs to
be a rationale for the interpretation when it goes beyond normative language
of the relevant specification.  It needs to be cited in some manner that can
be traced because interpretations can be modified and obsoleted.   

I am not clear that we have prescription level, target, and normative source
down.  If there is a documented interpretation, that should be the normative
source.  

I am going to look over what there is, and the latest procedure draft to see
if I can provide something more specific than being uncomfortable.

 - Dennis

PS: I still have my notes from mind-May on the ConformanceAssessmentMethod
document.  I need to review those and also look at wd02 to refresh my
thinking.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be] 
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 04:09
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oic] Version Control Commit by bart.hanssens

Dear OIC members,


I've made some slight modifications to the test assertions:


- changed prescriptionlevel to "interpretation"
- added target "implementation"


As Dennis pointed out, my assertions are mostly interpretations on how
an implementation IMHO should implement the ODF specification, instead
of conformance clauses for documents (taken from the spec itself)


As Rob pointed out, we can actually do this as the OIC TC and I strongly
feel we should (we could call it an Interoperability Profile, whatever)
since the spec is 

a) rather vague (or silent) on implementation behavior
b) the document part is mostly covered by the XSD



For instance: it isn't explicitly mentioned in the spec that
meta:printed-by must be updated after printing, so I've written down an
interpretation or deduction (whether or not this is a good
interpretation, is up for discussion)

I honestly cannot think of any spec-based, document-level assertion for
this element that goes beyond what can be checked by the XSD. If someone
else can, please do so...



Now, putting "interpretation" in <prescriptionlevel> isn't the cleanest
solution, but from a practical view, it saves one level of indirection:

- if I had to point from <normativereference> to yet another (yet to be
written document) called "ODF interpretation", and then point from that
document to the part of existing ODF spec...

- anyway, the assertion files being XML, we can simply write a script to
extract said "ODF interpretation" document afterwards



Best regards,

Bart


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php